Rancher Kills 39 Antelope

[jamaro]

Did you guys see this??? Amazing... Rancher Shoots 39 Antelope

 

By Jeff Jones Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writer A northern New Mexico rancher using a shotgun and an all-terrain vehicle has chased down and shot dozens of antelope feeding in his wheat field, according to the state Game and Fish Department. The agency says Cimarron-area rancher Neal Trujillo was "less than cooperative" about finding another solution last month before he began shooting the animals, which is legal for landowners under a controversial state law. Game and Fish said at least 39 antelope have been killed at the ranch, not including any that might have run off and weren't located by game officers. Some of the 39 were maimed but not killed by the shotgun blasts and had to be put out of their misery by the officers. "It's a hard one to swallow," Lief Ahlm, chief of the agency's northeast-area office, said Monday. Trujillo, meanwhile, said that he tried repeatedly to work with Game and Fish. But he said he won't abide by one of their conditions for reinforcing a fence to help keep out the antelope, which are also known as pronghorns. "I've called the game department I don't know how many times trying to work this out," he said in a telephone interview Monday. "I didn't just go out and start shooting antelope." Trujillo added: "I'm sure there are a lot of bleeding hearts out there that don't want the antelope shot. But every time an antelope takes a bite out of my field, he's taking money out of my pocket." The antelope carcass count from Trujillo's property is sure to reignite the debate over a controversial 1997 law that allows New Mexico farmers and ranchers to immediately kill game that threatens their crops. "This law needs to be overturned," said New Mexico Wildlife Federation Director Jeremy Vesbach, adding that his organization will push for that during next year's legislative session. A shotgun, which fires a group of small pellets rather than a single, larger-caliber bullet, is not meant for big-game hunting— and Vesbach condemned the shotgun killings. "This was absolutely an inhumane act," he said. Trujillo said, "I'm not a very good shot with a rifle." Ahlm said Trujillo had about 200 antelope in his Colfax County winter-wheat field, and an agency report shows that officers in late February and early March hazed the speedy animals off the property with ATVs and other vehicles. Antelope usually go under barbed-wire fences rather than over them. And Ahlm said Game and Fish offered to give Trujillo the materials— and some of the labor— needed to reinforce his fence to keep the animals out on the condition that Trujillo sign a contract agreeing to maintain the fence at his expense. Trujillo declined the contract deal. Game and Fish fixed one portion of the fence anyway, but Ahlm said about 50 antelope continued to get into the wheat field. "We offered him the interventions at our disposal," Ahlm said of Trujillo. But "I'd look at him as being certainly less than cooperative." The Game and Fish report said Trujillo on March 6 reported he'd shot some antelope. The killings continued later into March, the report said, adding that Trujillo's adult son, Neal Trujillo Jr., also reported killing some of them. The last reported shootings took place March 24, when officers found 18 dead antelope. That morning, before the shootings were reported, an officer had tried to haze the antelope off the wheat with noise-making devices. On that day, "Trujillo says he has (Game and Fish's) 'attention now ... I got tired of shooting antelope,' '' the report said. Trujillo said Monday that Game and Fish made only a "halfhearted effort" at pushing the antelope away from his property. He said he didn't want to sign the fencing contract because elk, which also come onto the land, tear up the fencing. "Why would I want to maintain something that I know is going to be torn up all the time?" he asked, adding that Game and Fish would be "more than welcome" to reinforce and maintain the fence on its own. Trujillo said that although most of the animals are now gone, he believes the problem will recur this fall when his next crop of winter wheat greens up while the rest of the landscape turns brown. When that happens, "I've got the green spot," he said. The 1997 law that allows ranchers to shoot crop-threatening game is known as the Jennings Law. It is named after its sponsor, Sen. Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, who is now the Senate president pro tem. The law allows the no-strings-attached killing of wildlife that presents an "immediate threat" to life or property, specifying only that the shootings be reported within 24 hours. After a 2003 incident in which another rancher killed 19 elk that he said were causing heavy crop damage, some lawmakers and Gov. Bill Richardson sought to change the law. Jennings said in a telephone interview Monday that while he's willing to take another look at the law, he believes Game and Fish needs to do a better job of handling ranchers' crop-damage complaints. Jennings said, "I don't condone any indiscriminate killing of animals." But he added the 200 antelope on Trujillo's ranch were eating the equivalent of what 40 cows would eat. "His wheat is his livelihood— it's just like money in the bank," Jennings said. "Could there be some changes? Yes, there could," Jennings said of the law. "But there has to be some changes that go both ways."

[jamaro]

How about some video... IT IS PRETTY DISTURBING...

 

http://video.ap.org/v/Default.aspx?partner...LJ&mk=en-ap

 

I talked to Dutch Salmon one of the game commission and he was pretty much disgusted about the whole thing. This is legal because of legislation passed by Tim Jennings during the Johnson Administration. He said that because it is law that the commission doesn't really have any say in the matter but that they can offer there opinion when asked. They will be discussing this at the next few meetings.

 

Call your commissioners up and tell them how you feel...

 

Jason

 

PS... Man, alot of crazy stuff was passed when Johnson was in office...

[bobbyo]

What part of the state is cimarron.

Bob

[DesertBull]

Does this guy apply for landowner permits or is he one that won't allow hunters on his property but complains when the animals over run it?

 

If he got 5 tags and sold them each for 1500 it would more than make up what a few 100lb goats can eat.

[jamaro]

This is the NE part of the state. I don't know if he applies for tags.

 

I understand that this is the law and but my big issue with this entire thing is that he used a shotgun. We all know that a shotgun is just not the way to ethically kill these animals.

 

J-

[muskrat]

I couldn't even watch it all.

 

Jason - Thanks for posting the story. I added it to my blog as well.

[ac guy]

I understand that this is the law and but my big issue with this entire thing is that he used a shotgun. We all know that a shotgun is just not the way to ethically kill these animals.

 

J-

 

This story sucks, but I have to disagree with one thing. A shotgun is a very effective weapon on deer sized game. I've taken a few in NC with buckshot, and they fall in their tracks, much better than any single rifle round . That's assuming that he had enough sense to use buckshot, which if he killed 39, I would think he did.

[KGAINES]

Reading and watching that pisses me off, I have to think this guy had more options but wanted to show the department that he understood the law and his rights and force the issue. I guess the meat was wasted and just left to rot. If wolves kill cattle ranchers are paid for the loss, I wonder if he was offered a deal such as that. If I am not mistaken isn't that the reason why the AZGFD has the over the counter elk tags right now, to get elk out of areas where they are not wanted, could something like that have been done for this guy. What about relocation, could they have moved these antelope to different areas to eliminate the conflict. Thirty nine just seems a bit outrageous to slaughter in that manner, there should be some sort of change to that law that has to allow the game and fish some say in mass killings.

[tjhunt2]

I just can't imagine that happening. Yes, the video disturbed me and I would like to hear the story from both sides. I feel for the animals and I ask myself was this rancher pushed to go into insanity to do what he did? I'm not saying, in anyway, he had any right to do this but what in the heck would push someone off the deep end. Game and Fish? There has to be more to this story and I'm not taking the rancher's side.

 

The rancher should pay for his actions, PERIOD!

 

TJ

[fatfootdoc]

They should just repeal all the game laws that were passed while that dumb a-- Johnson was gov. They should not be able to just go out and kill at the drop of a hat, the game and fish could have trapped and transplanted them , there were a lot of other options that could have happened. It is insane that the landowners(who for the most part I respect, as well as their rights) can just go out and kill that many animals for crop damage.

 

We need to contact a state reps etc and let them know how we feel, game and fish cant do anything about it.

What a waste of a beautiful animal. I would not shed a tear if that guys wheat field burnt up or froze, he deserves it. ag

[audsley]

I have a question about New Mexico game laws. Doesn't the wildlife belong to the people of New Mexico? Does New Mexico's constitution address wildlife? If not, maybe it should.

 

As others have pointed out, the problem is not in providing the rancher with relief from depredation. That's fair. The problem is New Mexico ranchers are apparently free to treat the state's wildlife as if wildlife was their own private property.

 

I was also puzzled a few months back when New Mexico's game & fish director was cited for taking an antelope on private land, and the citation was for taking the rancher's antelope, not for trespassing.

 

Do any of you New Mexico guys know the legal status of your state's wildlife?

[Outdoor Writer]

Not to condone this idiot's actions or say the law is proper, BUT...

 

It appears not everyone is reading the entire article cited above, especially this part of it:

 

The 1997 law that allows ranchers to shoot crop-threatening game is known as the Jennings Law. It is named after its sponsor, Sen. Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, who is now the Senate president pro tem. The law allows the no-strings-attached killing of wildlife that presents an "immediate threat" to life or property, specifying only that the shootings be reported within 24 hours.

 

It doesn't matter who owns the game, what he used or what he did. UNDER NM LAW, he had every right to do what he did. (See below).

 

The ONLY way to keep it from happening again is either to amend the current statute to include greater state control -- i.e. such as requiring depredation permits first, etc. -- or to cancel the law completely. -TONY

 

 

17-2-7.2. Landowner taking; conditions; department responsibilities.

 

A. A landowner or lessee, or employee of either, may take or kill an animal on private land, in which they have an ownership or leasehold interest, including game animals and other quadrupeds, game birds and fowl, that presents an immediate threat to human life or an immediate threat of damage to property, including crops; provided, however, that the taking or killing is reported to the department of game and fish within twenty-four hours and before the removal of the carcass of the animal killed, in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission.

 

B. A landowner or lessee, or employee of either, may take or kill animals on private land, in which they have an ownership or leasehold interest, including game animals and other quadrupeds, game birds and fowl, that present a threat to human life or damage to property, including crops, according to regulations adopted by the commission.

 

The regulations shall:

 

(1) provide a method for filing a complaint to the department by the landowner or lessee, or employee of either of them, of the existence of a depredation problem;

 

(2) provide for various departmental interventions, depending upon the type of animal and depredation;

 

(3) require the department to offer at least three different interventions, if practical;

 

(4) require the department to respond to the initial and any subsequent complaints within ten days with an intervention response to the complaint, and to carry out the intervention, if agreed upon between the department and the landowner, within five days of that agreement;

 

(5) permit the landowner or lessee to reject for good cause the interventions offered by the department; (in this case, his "good cause" in rejecting the fence offer was he didn't want to foot the bill for future maintenance)

 

(6) require a landowner or lessee to demonstrate that the property depredation is greater in value than the value of any wildlife-related income or fee collected by the landowner or lessee for permission to take or kill an animal of the same species, on the private property or portion of the private property identified in the complaint as the location where the depredation occurred; and

 

(7) permit the landowner, lessee or employee, when interventions by the department have not been successful and after one year from the date of the filing of the initial complaint, to kill or take an animal believed responsible for property depredation.

 

C. For purposes of this section:

 

(1) "commission" means the state game commission;

 

(2) "department" means the department of game and fish; and

 

(3) "intervention" means a solution proposed by the department to eliminate the depredation

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

Geeeessssh! I thought AZ was F'd up! You boys in NM had better do something about that law!!! What a waste of resources.... Capture and transplantation would work really good on those speedgoats.

 

Did they atleast salvage the meat off all those critters???

[25-06]

Whether legal or not, it just aint right.

[Outdoor Writer]

Someone mentioned the case of Bruce Thompson -- director of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Here's the item I wrote for my IN THE FIELD column in the June issue of Rocky Mt. Game & Fish. -TONY

 

NMDGF DIRECTOR CONVICTED

Lincoln County Magistrate Martha Proctor recently found Bruce Thompson, director of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, guilty for shooting a deer without permission on private land in southeastern New Mexico. He had pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor charge.

 

Proctor ordered Thompson to pay a $500 fine and sentenced him to 182 days in jail, before suspending the jail time and placing him on probation. The conditions of Thompson's unsupervised probation require that he not violate any local, state or federal laws for 182 days.

 

A second misdemeanor charge of unlawfully hunting or possessing a protected species was still pending at press time. Thompson had pleaded not guilty and was awaiting a jury trial.

 

The charges stemmed from a Nov. 17, 2007 incident on the Diamond T Ranch, west of Roswell. Thompson allegedly killed a deer but didn't get the landowner's permission. Hunting on private property in New Mexico without permission is illegal.

 

Thompson, who did possess a valid deer hunting license, had said he believed he was on U.S. Bureau of Land Management land, based on coordinates entered in his GPS unit.

 

Based on evidence and witness accounts at the time, investigators determined both misdemeanors were committed unintentionally. New Mexico law does not make allowances for lack of intent, however.

 

The investigating conservation officers said a hunting guide employed by the ranch owner saw Thompson with the dead deer, and later reported the incident to the owner, who then called a NMDGF officer. Thompson's hunting license was valid on public land or on private land with permission.

 

Thompson answered questions and provided a written statement.

 

"I have cooperated with the investigation and I will accept the consequences of my honest mistake," he said. "I apparently used an incorrect entry in my GPS unit while conducting my hunt, but that is no excuse, and I expect to be treated like any other hunter who unintentionally violates wildlife regulations."

 

The hunting guide who reported the incident verified that when he confronted Thompson, the director told the guide he believed he was on Bureau of Land Management land based on coordinates entered in his GPS unit.

 

Thompson later said, "I made an honest mistake, and this situation concerns me because I pride myself on being a hunter who pays meticulous attention to the rules. I used one wrong GPS coordinate when I planned my hunt, which unknowingly led me onto private land. When I realized I might have made an error, I immediately reported the incident to my staff and asked that I be treated no differently than any other hunter, which means I will accept any pertinent consequences."

 

As required by state law, the department seized the mature buck deer and sold the meat.